Newfag here, know a bit about guns (compared to libtards) but I've always wondered how the military round, which is pretty much designed to fragment, ie "expand" are war legal. I know obviously a spree shooter/Americans aren't bound to the Geneva convention and can buy whatever ammo they want for whatever gun, and how stupid this image is but it had me curious again
It's not even vaguely related to the Geneva Convention. It's just something utter retards repeat ad nauseum.
Ammunition and weapons are governed by the Hague Convention.
>>30296498
There is nothing about the 5.56 round that is at all designed to expand or explode, nor is it banned by any convention.
These are liberal memes.
>>30296511
First post best post.
>also
Fuck Michael Moore. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.
>which is pretty much designed to fragment, ie "expand"
Because it's fucking not. It's not designed to fragment, it's not designed to explode, it's not even covered by the Geneva Convention.
>>30296498
1. Everything in that tweet is wrong.
2. The ammunition isn't banned anywhere by any convention.
3. Tumbling, unstable rounds were a thing in the 60's and 70's but not past the 80's.
4. The Hague Convention of 1917 is where munitions that cause undue suffering is spelled out in a paragraph about two thirds through the document.
5. The Hague Convention only applies to signatories - as in warring nations.
6. The US never signed it.
7. At close range, the 5.56, like nearly all rifle and many handgun rounds, will tear bloody holes into people because they are not at optimum range (around 300 meters away).
GENEVA CONVENTIONS DICTATE THE TREATMENT OF CIVILIANS AND PRISONERS OF WAR
AT NO FUCKING POINT DOES IT TALK ABOUT FIREARMS
WHY DOES NOBODY FUCKING LEARN THIS
>>30296498
Lolwhat? Any boolit that enters the body (or anything) tumbles around or at times fragments.
>>30296498
Yep. It spins, explodes, rapes your mom, kills your dog, travels back in time and kills JFK.
You're taking the words of the most retarded anti serious, which kinda puts you in the same boat. We wouldn't of used it for nearly 15 years in OIF and OEF if it were illegal warfare rounds.
>>30296511
>>30296521
>>30296524
OP here. Damn see even I should have known hague. So they "just" tumble? I thought the high velocity and thin jacket allowed it to fragment, and that's why it wasn't as effective at further distance/why they adopted a different round after Vietnam? And the Russians tried to copy it in the 5.45 but didn't quiteee work out the same?
>>30296531
because anti's dont care
>>30296557
People on /k/ also constantly quote the Geneva Convention as banning guns.
>>30296528
That was a second point I always wondered, can we use hollow points against terrorists if we wanted? And yeah forgot we never signed it
>>30296528
Id like to add that the tumbling bullets were because of the barrels used on early m16s that weren't able to stabilize the bullets fired, which has since been corrected.
Feel free to correct me with a source, though, what I posted is basically hearsay
>>30296555
>why they adopted a different round after Vietnam?
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>30296555
>So they "just" tumble?
All bullets tumble after hitting something. They are inherently unstable and require spin to stabilize during flight. Footballs work the same way.
>I thought the high velocity and thin jacket allowed it to fragment, and that's why it wasn't as effective at further distance
When the AR-15 and M16 were first being fielded they were not fully stabilized after being fired. This caused massive tumbling on top of fragmentation after hitting something.
Why they adopted a different round after Vietnam?
After 1982, longer, heavier bullets were being used and they were now being properly stabilized. This meant they didn't tumble as much any more, but still fragmented at high enough velocities when striking objects at a given range. More consistent, better barrier penetration, and longer range.
Very close targets get chunks taken out of them from the extremely close range fragmentation and minor tumbling like any other similar bullet. At ranges under 10 meters, this is practically any bullet fired from any gun that isn't a mousegun.
>And the Russians tried to copy it in the 5.45 but didn't quiteee work out the same?
The Russians perfected tumbling wound instability with the 5.45, but couldn't nail down fragmentation consistently. The 5.45 has a little air pocket or lead or steel nose to encourage tumbling after hitting someone.
>>30296555
It "can" tumble, but that's not really desirable since it ruins accuracy. The metal jacket actually stops the round from fragmenting to some degree, though it's mostly to prevent leading.
We still use 5.56mm rounds pretty much like the ones we were using in Vietnam. I don't know if the actual projectile has changed in terms of the exact specs, but it's nominally the same caliber of round.
>>30296577
Damn I'm just asking. I though they early m16 used a heavy bullet + twist rate
>>30296572
But was it just the twist rate? >>30296550
And again that's why I'm asking, I've seen this chart for years. Is it inaccurate? Wiki does say (I know...lol) we stopped using m193 because the wounds were inhumane.
>>30296571
Yes, we could. We could use pretty much anything - they aren't an organized army and we have no treaties with them as a formal enemy.
We don't because we aren't barbarians. If we didn't care, we would be expending old ordnance and firebombing everything as a cheaper/faster method for nonnuclear victory.
You can't have terrorists or insurgents if no one is left alive.
>>30296550
No wonder it works for the government.
honestly what Michael Moore said concerns me greatly. I use a mossberg MVP series chambered in 5.56/223 for my hunting rifle and it doesnt make ANYTHING blow up. where the hell do i get these high explosive rounds the news always talks about
>>30296628
We don't use them because there's no point.
If they killed more effectively, we'd use them.
>>30296628
It's not because we're humanitarians, it's beca-
>>30296652
Exactly. Also because they'd be a lot more expensive and 99.9% of them end up embedded in the side of dirt shacks, making it a monumental waste of resources.
>>30296614
>>30296617
Thank you for some better input. Yes I should have clarified I knew the we stable in the air and tumbled in the body, and that many rounds will fragment if close enough, but I know also that a high sectional density, along with nose shape (flat) and lower velocity will allow for deeper penetration, and weight retention for big game hunting or early 6.5x52/6mm navy etc
>>30296498
Military rounds don't really expand because hollow point ammo isn't war legal IIRC
>>30296572
No, you're correct. 1:14 and 1:12 used up until 1979 officially didn't stabilize the 55gr M193 properly at all, and because the M194 tracer was a similar weight, nobody cared as much because a tumbling bullet that reliably fragmented at range caused horrific wounds and rapid blood loss on the enemy.
However it was complete garbage from even small environmental hazards like leafs, light winds, heavy clothing, rain, et c.
In 1977 the SS109 bullet was selected and in 1979 the M855 replaced the M193 in use by the Army with other branches following. In 1980, the M16A2 saw a new barrel twist (1:7) to stabilize and improve on the new ammunition's ballistics, and to also properly stabilize the heavier match and tracer ammunition being adopted.
>>30296563
i have never seen that and ive been here since 2008
>fuck, ive been here since 2008...
>>30296626
Early M16's used a light bullet and a very slow twist rate. It never properly stabilized the M193 and caused horrible wounds. At 200+ meters in good weather, it was absolutely deadly. It performed horribly in the jungle against trees, leaves, branches, grass, rain, wind, mud, et c. Almost no penetration because they were unstable and tended to tumble in flight.
>>30296628
>>30296652
>>30296666
And thanks I figured that's why we didn't, I just wondered if we COULD but really soft points shouldn't be more expensive than standard? And yest I realize the goal isn't too kill everyone in war, just take them out of the fight
>>30296498
>>30296626
Twist rate matters with the rate of the bullet. Heavy football + lots of spin is stable, but light football + lots of spin goes all over the place. You still need to spin the light one, just not as hard, so less twist rate.
Also the OP pic is trash.
>>30296717
Lol
>>30296688
>>30296670
Ok and also thanks. I knew the twist rate had issues but I thought the original round "zipped" through them like early 6-6.5mm rounds (carano, arisaka etc) but if anything they were TOO damaging? I thought they increased velocity and decreased weight and jacket thickness to make them frag but I guess it was just the opposite?
>>30296498
It's completely false. The general ammo doesn't do that. At all. None of it is banned.
>>30296798
>I knew the twist rate had issues but I thought the original round "zipped" through them like early 6-6.5mm rounds (carano, arisaka etc) but if anything they were TOO damaging?
???
They were unstable in flight and had very poor barrier performance. They were very effective against soft targets.
>I thought they increased velocity and decreased weight and jacket thickness to make them frag but I guess it was just the opposite?
The change from M193 to M855 was a heavier bullet that was longer with a thicker jacket and a mild steel penetrator and a minor change in propellant. The barrel was optimized for 1:8.5 but the heavier 69gr match bullets and the very long M856 tracer need more stabilization to keep fragmentation at the correct velocity and distance (2700m/s at 300 meters). So they went to a 1:7 twist.
Stop over thinking this.
>>30296833
If you're asking why the change, it was to be more stable in flight and less prone to barriers. It had the consequence of removing the tumbling in flight that cause much more damage than what the new bullets did.
At extremely close ranges, both new and old ammunition (and most other similar ammunition) performs the same.
>>30296798
>>30296667
The only reason the rounds "fragment" is lack of stability. Which has been corrected. This could also occur with LITERALLY every modern ammunition. Any bullet can fragment, not just ar-15 boolits!
So now the ar-15 assault baby murderer doesn't vomit explosive fragmentation grenades death balls.
>>30296833
>>30296841
Well I got it now thanks, I clarified my misconceptions, but now you did state the m 850 keeps fragmentation within the correct distance, so it sounds like "design" to me. Tumbling causes extra damage without tons of pieces or lead needing to be removed usually right?
>>30296868
But what about wadcutters? Or RN long heavy slow rifle bullets?
My original point was I thought the 5.56 was intended to FRAGMENT as opposed to tumble, or whatever it's called with spoon tip ammo (still just spinning? Sooner/more violent?) As someone mentioned the 5.45 doesn't behave the same even though they have similar concepts (small cal, lighter bullet, higher velocity, carry more per weight etc)
So originally I though
>early 5.56 was (relativley) slow and heavy and didn't tumble/frag
But now I realize
>early 5.56 was light and too unstable and behaved violently/was easily deflected
>>30297027
Damn meant m856.
And yes I realize many bullets at point blank well frag, and why hunting bullets are designed to expand slower for less meat waste
>inb4 you'll blow up yer deer!
But I thought in comparison to he 5.56 was designed to have a further point blank or whatever compared to 7.62x39 or 7.92x33 or any of the other early intermediate cartridges
>>30297027
>you did state the m 850 keeps fragmentation within the correct distance, so it sounds like "design" to me. Tumbling causes extra damage without tons of pieces or lead needing to be removed usually right?
Fragmentation is the desired effect, yes. M193 and M855 were both designed for this, but M855 is an improvement on M193, and M855A1 is a further improvement.
Tumbling in M193 from a 20" 1:14 or 1:12 barrel causes tumbling in flight from nearly any disturbance. This is undesirable because an unstable bullet has incredibly bad penetration qualities and is prone to unreliable killing at longer distances. Additionally this unstable flight meant that wounds received were very bad due to the tumbling entry and exit of the bullet along with the normal fragmentation (assuming it fragments at all, since a tumbling bullet may not fragment reliably anymore).
M855 resolved the unreliable nature of the twist and bullet by improving the overall weapon design and having a bullet much better suited to light barrier penetration, making it fragment more reliably at range despite any light intervening obstacles. This reliability is highly desirable.
>But what about wadcutters? Or RN long heavy slow rifle bullets?
Wadcutters are for punching paper, and tumble rather than fragment in flesh. RN lead bullets, say 30-30 or something similar is meant to penetrate, tumble, and expand while bashing their way through thick animal hides, dense muscles, and hard bony ribs so that your game animal is killed quickly and in one shot.
Similar bullets against a person who has no such animal qualities tends to just poke a clean hole through them unless the round is highly unstable or somehow very prone to expansion, in which case it will tear a chunk out of them and still pass through.
>>30297074
>I thought in comparison to he 5.56 was designed to have a further point blank or whatever compared to 7.62x39 or 7.92x33 or any of the other early intermediate cartridges
Point blank is generally 3 meters or less. They all perform the same very nearly.
M855 doesn't fragment until it reach a critical velocity and impacts in a specific way against a specific kind of target. Against people this is around 2700m/s at 300 meters. Closer than this it will poke a small hole and tear out a slightly larger hole. Once you are close enough, the wound will be terrible from the tumbling of the bullet, but it will have almost no fragmentation. 7.62x39 works the same way at a lower velocity and is more designed to penetrate thick clothing and flesh. At very close range it makes a slightly larger wound than 5.56x45. 7.92x33 is a grossly similar performing round to .300 Blackout - a lower velocity, heavier bullet, meant to work better at closer ranges against "harder" targets. At very close range it performs similarly to 5.56x45 and 7.62x39
>>30297099
Well I meant fmj RN again, like the 6mm lee, 6.5x52, I have a 6.5x55 swede and kinda know how they switched to 140 gr and changed the twist and shortened the barrel for reasons. Would those fragment even at very close range? (The 150gr+ fmj) I mean I'm sure the wound would still be horrific just due to the close force, but as long as it didn't break apart or tumble but assuming they weren't near vitals...
>>30297074
>many bullets at point blank well frag
tumble. nearly all bullets at point blank will tumble. they will fragment easily if they hit something hard like bone.
>>30297151
Fragmentation requires a specifically designed bullet, at a certain velocity, at a certain impact angle, against a certain target, at a certain distance.
You may randomly get fragments depending on various factors, but reliable fragmentation depends on controlling those as much as possible. 7.62x51 doesn't reliably fragment at all, but in the 80's the Germans (DAG) made a very thin jacketed projectile with a purposeful fold at the cannelure to induce fragmentation at around 800 meters for machineguns. it was unpopular because of very poor barrier penetration that soldiers were likely to encounter like trees or packed dirt formed into makeshift foxholes. Fragmentary M80 was abandoned.
Older rifle ammunition like the M2 or 7.5 Swiss was meant to kill in the same way hunting ammunition kills - minus the expansion. It will hit at up to 1km, penetrate, and tumble internally before exiting and leaving a bloody fist sized hole out of some soft back tissue. It may fragment if hitting something hard like bone or a thick jacket or rocks embedded in a mud embankment, but it wasn't in the design or the philosophy.
>>30297154
Ok, cause I've seen myth busters water safety myth and people shooting jugs (lol I know..) and quite often things frag but I also know water is diff than ballistics gel, and gel is diff than flesh. So if I was shot point blank by .308 fmj just through my "guts" sideways, the bullet probably wouldn't fragment? (Yes I know I'd probably die/have stuff blown out of me)
>>30296498
Caliber is fine. But expanded ammunition banned by Hague convention.
>“The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.”
>Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899.
Pretty sure killer used this type of banned expanded ammunition in Orlando.
Sounds reasonable.
>>30297221
That doesn't matter though, since hollow point and expanding ammunition is perfectly legal for civilian use. Just because a military convention banned something doesn't mean that it should be illegal for civil use. For instance, hollow points are excellent defense and hunting rounds since they don't overpenetrate nearly as much, if at all.
>>30297211
Water is much thicker than air, but not as thick as flesh or gelatin. Bullets fired completely underwater tend to explode into harmless fragments from a combination of pressure, cavitation causing rapid instability of a round that needs to dump its energy too quickly for the medium to absorb, and average bullet construction.
A bullet shot from air into water behaves slightly differently and will lose a majority of its energy going through the water's surface before slowing cleanly after a few feet.
If you were shot through the gut at point blank range from an M14, it would pass clean through your and tear chunk out of your back enough to poke a finger through the hole.
You seem really really autistic about this whole thing. Do you shoot or hunt often? These are not mysterious alien technologies going on with bullets and targets.
>>30296498
1. Michael Moore is a libtard fuckhead
2. Hollow points are designed to fragment and expand, but I don't know any military that deploys their infantry with hollow points.
3. What is a military round? 3006mm Armor Piercing Incendiary?
>>30297221
I mean it's not like both Mateen and the 50 fags were signatory nations, so.
>>30297253
>is perfectly legal for civilian use.
Speaks much about gun nuts who sneak into laws weapon types that case superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
>>30297261
>You seem really really autistic about this whole thing. Do you shoot or hunt often?
No lol, and unfortunately not as much as I'd like, but I was just curious cause I saw that stupid post, and I "knew" the 5.56 usually fragments, and I knew the Hague bans expanding bullets (originally dum dum" soft points right? ) but it seemed like fragmenting pretty much=expanding, and I just didn't know how it was legal. I know we didn't sign it but I'm assuming many other countries that use 5.56 did. Thought we just ignored it like "lol is not or fault our bullets happen to go fast enough to do that! :DDD"
Fuck Michael Moore and his absolute bullshit, he's like one of those tripfags here who just spew inane bullshit and pass it off as fact.
I remember in Bowling for Columbine he tried to pass off US intervention in the First Gulf war as turning a poor innocent people back over to their tyrant overlords. The lack of context he provides to fuel his own little hissy fits is amazing.
>>30296498
>but I've always wondered how the military round, which is pretty much designed to fragment
No bullet is "designed" to fragment. It's just something that happens, especially if the projectile is made of softer metals.
>>30297298
It's like you didn't even read the rest of my post. They are suitable rounds for hunting and home defense due to the low likelihood of overpenetrating, meaning that if you shoot a burglar, you don't have to worry about accidentally killing your neighbor next door.
I can't even believe I took your bait.
>>30296555
Russian 5.45 is deadlier than 5.56x45. Drunken Slavs manufactured their bullet with an air pocket in the nose. They claimed that it was to cut costs because it would be more expensive to machine a cone on to the tip of their steel core. In fact, they probably knew what they were doing. The nose deforms just a little bit when hitting kebab, but it is enough to cause it to violently tumble, ripping the shit out of fifty kilogram Chechens.
>>30297298
>Killing a deer in one hit instead of letting it run away wounded and bleed out for hours before being ripped apart by wolves is inhumane
2ez
Insert more b8
>>30296563
Only the newest of newfags.
>>30297300
>"knew" the 5.56 usually fragments
it does. and it does it reliably. at a certain speed, range, and target. fragmenting isn't the same as expanding. it's why they use two different words to describe two distinct and different processes. they are different.
a JHP expand by filling material into the bullet, forcing the jacket and lead "petals" apart as the bullet travels forward, often turning the bullet around as its mass shifts rearward and "tearing" through flesh.
fragmentation is a bullet literally attempting to energy transfer too much at once and coming apart at the seams - often tearing itself apart in the process, leaving many small fragments that tear and cause bleeding internally from many small wounds and one very large wound. JHPs often make one or two large wounds and few fragmenting ones.
some JHPs can fragment and some are designed to do so.
>>30297298
quite the opposite. Gun nuts use it to minimize suffering (kill as quickly as possible) and to prevent overpenetration -- something that people *that care about what their bullets will hit* think about.
And don't even start with the bullshit "HUHR DUHR U USE IT BUT MILITARY CAN'T? HOW AWFUL!!" Because you piece of shit assholes would bitch that we're "using military ammunition" on the flipside, you fuckstick.
>>30297300
>and I just didn't know how it was legal.
It doesn't. No civilized nations use fragmenting anti-personal bullets on the battlefield. Only US, who:
1. Didn't sign conventions prohibiting weapons causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
2. Do all legal mumbo-jumbo they can do to present their unhuman weapons as "legal"
No surprises about US honestly.
>>30296669
Read the goddamn thread before replying.
>>30297342
>Gun nuts use it to minimize suffering (kill as quickly as possible) and to prevent overpenetration -- something that people *that care about what their bullets will hit* think about.
But this was proven wrong in Hague in 1899 intentional law disagrees with you.
![fa39j9[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eaV4VHb.jpg "fa39j9[1].jpg")
>>30297320
To add to what this anon says, here's a pic of a dude who got barely clipped by 5.45. The two holes on his neck are the initial entry and exit points.
>>30297396
That particular international law is fucking stupid. Probably why we didn't sign it.
>>30297357
literally nothing in this post is true.
The US doesn't use it on the battlefield.
The weapons themselves aren't hollowpoints
and the nations that did sign the treaty aren't civilized
>>30297337
Well maybe I was thinking about it to autisticly but in my mind expanding/fragmenting=increasing surface area. And since the Hague was done before 5.56(?) I figured the "sprit" of it would still apply
This
>>30297238
Sounded more in line with reality to me?
>>30297357
But several nations use 5.56 nato, even non NATO ones right? do they use different rounds than us or do they just bait their opponent?
>>30297396
it was proven right by everyone that's ever fired a bullet.
Guess those politicians at the Hague convention weren't educated about guns
>>30297146
The best part of 7.62s wounding effects is that it flies directly in the face of libs screaming about schoolchildren being murdered by AK-47s
There was a study conducted after the schoolyard shooting in California that attempted to investigate the strangely high survival rates of the children who were shot. Turns out, children are small enough that the bullet would icepick straight through them without destabilizing.
>>30297146
>Point blank is generally 3 meters or less.
No. You have been watching too much law and order.
>>30297407
Jeez. That guy's lucky to be alive.
>>30297396
Because they were using dum dum bullets that caused horrific injuries that were still treatable? Deer don't go running back to other deer to get patched up... In war you aren't necessarily trying to instantly kill/maim everyone, just neutralize the threat
>>30297421
>Well maybe I was thinking about it to autisticly but in my mind expanding/fragmenting=increasing surface area. And since the Hague was done before 5.56(?) I figured the "sprit" of it would still apply
No. They are two different things, and only in expansion is the surface area increased really. Fragmenting bullets a functionally different in both how they work internally and in design.
Further, the US never signed into the Hague, and the Hague outlines specifically what would be avoided during wars between signatories - so if it isn't stipulated it's fair game. This is known as strict legal interpretation.
Only the US and those countries using US M855 spec ammunition and weapons would get similar fragmentation results. To my knowledge the US is the only ones that regularly issue fragmenting ammunition to infantry. Other countries may have NATO spec ammunition with different rifles, or NATO spec ammunition with very similar rifles, but they generally don't fragment much if at all. Canadian military ammunition is NATO spec, but the C77 is closer in performance to older M193 ammunition with larger fragments occurring less often.
>>30297438
Op again. I was wondering about that? Don't remember definition but I thought it had to due with caliber, weight, speed etc. And could be up to dozens of meters away from the muzzle?
>>30296528
The Nuremburg Trials stated that every country has to abide to the Hague Convention.
>>30297478
Point blank is the range at which the bullet impacts close enough to the rifle's zero that no holdover in either direction is needed
Here's the thing. Nowadays basically everyone, even illiterate mudfarmer hajjis, have plate carriers. Why would you ever use hollowpoints if all your opponents are wearing armor that easily stops them?
>>30297490
Lol no.
>>30297476
Well by strict physical definition many smaller pieces of a bullet will have more surface area than one intact bullet. Whether that equals more damage than tumbling or expanding is is another story. But it will make it harder to remove
>>30297490
We still use white phosphorus.
>>30297438
No, I'm reading from the FM which says 25 meters and under is point blank with 3 meters being average point blank use (from the FBI statistics on forensic pathology).
close range is out to 25 meters and to 100 meters, and beyond that is medium range out to 600 meters where you get into long range. obviously it will vary from weapon to weapon and terrain to terrain, but these are ballpark numbers
point blank is not "touching someone" any more than "across the room" considering guns are deadly at hundreds of meters.
>>30297491
This. Point blank range can extend hundreds of meters for most rifle calibers and most targets.
>>30297517
Army FMs are notoriously (and consistently) wrong.
>>30297438
laymen say point blank when what they really mean is a contact shot.
>>30297490
yeah, for crimes against humanity like genocides or mass exterminations.
>>30297508
Only as marking rounds.
It's a total coincidence that we like to mark the locations of charred bodies.
>>30297491
Got it. There's not a separate definition for bullet effects though? Or are they close enough they're one in the same? "5.56 won't fragment as effectively after point black range, which is when the bullet starts to drop anyway" or something like that?
>>30297476
But they did sign and ratify 3 of the 6 hague conventions (does not include expanding bullets). That doesn't really matter though as there is something called customary international law.
>>30297517
>>30297525
Not the point blank issue, but another time an Army FM/TM was grossly inaccurate.
https://youtu.be/nthZ7RHD3yA
>>30297517
>>30297518
Kinda answered my question
>>30297542
And
>>30297527
I did kinda know that thanks
>>30297517
Point blank relates to the trajectory of the bullet; the distance where you do not have to offset your aim due to ballistics.
>>30296571
Legally, yes.
We don't (at least our conventional armed forces don't, SOCOM plays by their own rules) because it's really not necessary and while nobody would face criminal charges the US as a whole would get (even more) fried in the court of public opinion.
>but muh Nuremberg Trials!
Were the Allies sticking it to one of if not the most villified regimes to ever exist, and they bent/broke dozens of international laws to do it.
